User talk:EdJohnston

AN/EW report

Hi EdJohnston. I just happened to bump into the recent report at [1] when I happened to search my name with the function. Why was it my name emerged? I know I am not involved but I would like to know how I factored in the dispute. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I went back to the guy's talk page and I remembered what I did. This dispute seems like a stupid dispute, I'm glad I didn't wade in. Sorry for the message. Cheers, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

EW: Stephen Sizer

You recently added temporary protection to Stephen Sizer. I simultaneously attempted to try and open up a dialogue on Talk:Stephen Sizer [2] and [3] unfortunately this was not very successful as a few editors seemed more intent on heaping abuse on me rather than providing constructive input.
After the protection lapsed, despite the lead paragraph being left in an incomplete state, I initially held of making any further changes in the hope that another editor would take it up. As this had still not yet happened I today attempted to rework the lead paragraph complete with RS citations. This was reverted shortly thereafter by Keith-264. I once again rewrote the lead paragraph only to have it reverted a few minutes later by Collect.
Despite having provided RS sources, it seems to me that these two editors are more intent on whitewashing Sizer rather than promoting the facts. For the most part other than make disparaging comments about me (which I documented on WP:ANI) or deleting what I have written, they have provided almost no constructive input. Needless to say all this back and forth has taken a considerable amount of time and I am at the stage where I feel like walking away, but can not in clear conscious leave the article in the state it is in. How would you suggest that I proceed? Thanks. Clivel 0 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Sizer is described by one of the sources as a 'passionate anti-Israel activist'. Reference 32 of the Sizer article calls him an 'anti-Zionist vicar.' Our article on Sizer is thus related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, and you should not be editing it until you reach 500 edits, per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, nevertheless, I do not believe that the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 rule applies in this case. The charges against Sizer are specifically related to anti-Semitism, which is not the same as anti-Zionism (although no doubt many anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites) so therefore could not be "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" otherwise, anything related to Judaism or Israel could at a stretch be described as related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Sizer was banned from social media specifically for disseminating antisemitic material as described by Bishop Watson: "I have concluded that, at the very least, he has demonstrated appallingly poor judgment on the material he has chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly antisemitic" [[4]]. Clivel 0 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

His antisemitism manifests as anti-Zionism, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Stephen Sizer has been reported by sources to be anti-Zionist, and Zionism is already covered by the arbitration case, I've put the banner {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} on the talk page of Stephen Sizer. If the only charge complaint about Sizer was one of antisemitism (whether valid or not) then I wouldn't be suggesting that ARBPIA was applicable. Sizer is a controversial figure because of what he thinks about *the state of Israel*. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ed, Sizer hasn't been charged with anything and opinion about the zionist occupation is not controversial per se.Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced the word 'charge' by 'complaint' above. People who don't believe in the project of a Jewish state in the Middle East can presumably be described as anti-Zionists. The topic of Zionism is in ARBPIA. Unsure how anyone can discuss Sizer's views without getting into the ARBPIA domain. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 - General Prohibition and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

IP on Irish War of Independence

One of the IP editors on Irish War of Independence which resulted in PP has started the same edits on List of wars involving the Republic of Ireland changing ceasefire to victory. Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access removal

AkhtarHussain83 has been lying about the edit warring block, I said there was evidence but the sock of KhanJohn23 is not, Can you revoke his talk page access? KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is still an open unblock request at User talk:AkhtarHussain83 so I don't want to revoke his talk page access. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

1RR restriction vs topic Ban

You have recommended a topic ban instead of a 1RR restriction because you claim that I an incapable of understanding 1RR and will follow the rules. What do I need to do in order to prove that I will uphold the 1RR restrictions? I have already removed an unsubstantiated claim on the talk page (by me) regarding funding by the vaccination industry (which was wrong of me to post). I am able to take responsibility for my actions and recognize that my behaviour on this page was unfitting and I did not abide by the good faith rule as pointed out by Bishonen. I am now aware of good faith and have taken a different approach with editing pages such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_News

The above page, I feel doesn't have substantiated claims. Instead of me directly editing the page, I am only asking for a consensus on the information that is already there. I will not edit war, I will not assume bad faith.Conzar (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I understand that you meant well in removing those inappropriate comments of yours, Conzar, but you actually shouldn't have. You're not supposed to remove your own comments on talkpages once they have been answered — it's too late then — because that makes the other person's answer look pointless or nonsensical.[5][6] Put yourself in their shoes. If you have started to feel uncomfortable about a post of yours, you should instead cross it out, see WP:REDACT for how. Then it remains visible, but you clarify that you no longer stand by it. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

Another way is to remove it and replace it with a small note mentioning it was removed and a diff to what was removed. This makes it less visible but still makes it clear that something was removed and what it was. HighInBC 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So is the topic ban permanent? If so, do you reasonably expect me to continue to use this account and not just create another one? Conzar (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Conzar: if you show that you can edit well in other controversial areas and use sources properly you could apply to have your ban lifted, after a reasonable time. If you are threatening to sock, that's unlikely to improve your reputation. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, [7]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not threatening to sock. If the ban is permanent forever, than there would be no reason to continue using this account. Its only logical for any person to just create a new account if their old account was useless. However, if there is an opportunity for the ban to be lifted after some amount of time, and show reform, than I would much rather that option. What are the specific requirements for the ban to be lifted? Conzar (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Create a good editing record. Then an unban might be considered. People who receive time-limited bans will sometimes just try to wait them out, and then continue with the same behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ed is dead on with that Conzar; to give you some kind of definite answer, I don't think I have seen a TBAN lifted after less than six months. In addition to that, although your account has been around a couple of years, you have only about 100 edits, which is a remarkably low number for somebody to already have been up to and through an AE; it signals that you were very determinedly disruptive and unwilling to pay mind to the policies and guidelines on that topic - a really bad start. People do recover from them, and everybody starts somewhere. The WP:Service awards (which some people are into) put benchmarks at 6 months/2000 edits and 1 year/4,000 edits. People might consider lifting the TBAN at the the first and would very likely consider it at the 2nd. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c)(talk page stalker) Conzar, your ban is indefinite, not permanent. I believe it is usual for editors and admins to want to see at least 6 months of good editing away from the subject of your ban before considering lifting it. I have to say, your approach here seems rather adversarial. This is somewhat understandable given the frustration you are almost certainly experiencing, but as someone who recently tried to get a ban lifted, I can promise you this is not helping your case. You are being offered very good advice by an experienced and respected admin (and others). I urge you to take this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that my last posting was made immediately after an edit conflict. I did not see who the previous editor was before making my posting. I have an interaction ban with Jytdog, but my edit was in no way a response or comment on their posting, nor any attempt to interact. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A 48-hour block you did...

Appears not to have had its intended effect. As soon as the block ended, the IP editor returned to the same page and continued to reinsert the disputed material. Would you please review this? David in DC (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User is now blocked for a longer period, per the complaint about them at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(what is very likely to be) the same user, is using a different IP, with very similar WHOIS results, to edit the above article/talk page. Special:Contributions/149.88.241.222 - it seems pretty obvious, but if it's easier to deal with via a sockreport, let me know and I will file it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has not been making the same changes, so far. And the article is now semiprotected so even if it is, he can't do much. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ԱշոտՏՆՂ

Hi dear EdJohnston, as you said in my talk page, you have blocked me for a period of 3 days[8]. But I can edit now. Did you forget to block me? --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Now taken care of, per the block notice already issued. Thanks for the reminder. EdJohnston (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:AkhtarHussain83

Hello. I am handling an unblock request and I am hoping you can help me understand the block better. I went through their ~50 contributions. Other than this edit you mention, and a bit of edit warring I am not seeing an obvious reason for an indef block. I asked them about that edit and they gave an explanation here: User_talk:AkhtarHussain83#Block review.

The content in question seems to have been originally added here by User:KahnJohn27 who was a user of 3 years who was blocked weeks after the edit. Do you think these two users are connected?

I may be missing information, and I am happy to reconsider, but as it stands I am having trouble understanding the duration of the block. Thank you. HighInBC 14:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:AkhtarHussain83. Thanks for taking on the review. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I tried. I guess they can see if the next block reviewer will be as patient and accommodating as me. I really appreciate your reasonable stance in this matter, it is a pity the user would not accept your offer. HighInBC 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

IP trouble again

There's a new IP I'm very suspicious about, and I'm pretty much convinced it's the sock of those IPs you recently blocked.

92.3.12.19 (talk · contribs) is the new IP and it's coming out of Wales, just like the other three IPs. Something very peculiar is that this latest IP personally attacked veteran user Darouet out of nowhere. It is strange because this IP had no contact with Darouet in the two edits prior to his PA against Darouet. However, at least one of these IPs have a history with Darouet as seen here [9]. This IP also has a unique way of referring to my user name. He says 'Etienne Dolet' with an apostrophe (as seen here and here). Also, it somehow appears to know a thing or two about Wikipedia preferences (i.e. "Wikipedia should follow RS not your agenda.") said here. This IP is also not guilt free from personal attacks as seen here. These complaints are very similar in the recent IPs tone as seen here where he repeats the whole RS jargon over and over again.

All these IPs are geographically coming out of very close locations in a certain part of Wales. See for yourself. I have listed them in chronological order from earliest to most recent:

• 92.3.26.96
• 92.3.26.121
• 92.3.22.140
• 92.3.30.114
• 92.3.12.19

Let me know what you plan on doing. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, you're not the one who blocked them. I got you mixed up with FPaS. But you can still take a look at your convenience and let me know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the indefinite semiprotection on Vladimir Putin. That should handle it, except for the personal attacks. If you also want blocks, why not ask User:Ohnoitsjamie, who has already blocked Special:Contributions/92.3.30.114. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine I'll go ahead and ask Ohnoitsjamie. But this is a clear-cut sock and I've added more DUCK-like evidence. In fact, the IP should get blocked just for this alone [10] (I warned him for personal attacks). But I want the sockpuppetry to go on record so as to easily prevent it in the future. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Block range expanded, duration extended. Let me know if further modification is needed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie Is it appropiate for me to strike out some of the comments he has made at article talk pages? Such as this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:DENY. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

editwar by me and User:130.156.22.254 and others

You were kind enough to comment here I would like to say that I have also perpetrated when it comes to 3rr, so I'm also to blame. However I do think that it's not right when users insert their personal opinions into sourced text, that is not supported by the sources used. It happens a lot on pages concerning ethnic groups and it is worrisome and damages Wikipedia. There is also a matter of sockpuppetry involved which I have reported here. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. For your action here. User: 69.119.175.240 was also involved today here. As can also be seen here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Cordially Asking Your Professional Opinion

• Emmaus Nicopolis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:EdJohnston, I am turning to you for your unbiased and professional opinion about an edit on the archaeological site Emmaus Nicopolis article, a place in Israel, and where I have suggested a more neutral edit so as to read: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," as opposed to the current edit that reads: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." As it stands, two Arab editors have joined in on the Talk-Page discussion (see: Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis#Location of Emmaus-Nicopolis (Imwas)) to voice their general disapproval at implying the archaeological site is in Israel, while Jewish participants (including myself) have wanted to omit the words "West Bank" in the article, that is to say, to keep it neutral, without mentioning Israel, neither the West Bank. What do you think we should do with respect to this edit? Can you give your advice on how we ought to proceed and to reach a compromise?Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

At present the Emmaus Nicopolis article does not mention any political controversy about the place of the site. That article is mostly addressed to history and archaeology. It might be best to describe the site's location in the most non-committal fashion possible. If you can manage to omit both West Bank and Israel from the article lead, that might be best. If a dispute occurs, consider an WP:RFC. There is more political stuff in Canada Park and that might be a better place to mention political issues. It appears that Canada Park actually straddles the Green Line. If people consider this an important issue, maybe somebody can create a map showing how that works. It is WP:UNDUE to make an archaeological article political if reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect in their own coverage of the site. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I'll post your reply on the Talk-Page, but I'll keep it anonymous.Davidbena (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ed, with all due respect, the article doesnt make any political points. It says where the place is, without any commentary at all. Its not in dispute that this place is in the West Bank, it isnt in the area Israel proclaimed annexed with East Jerusalem. The only dispute is happening on that talk page, nowhere else. We're going around in circles with somebody who is claiming that the UN recognized that the Jewish state includes all of Palestine, including the West Bank, and that the West Bank is a historical place that hasnt existed since the Jordanian occupation. Nobody is adding "Israeli-occupied" or anything of the sort to the article. Nobody is politicizing anything there. We arent even putting in "Palestinian territories". But we really shouldnt be say a place in the West Bank is in the West Bank? Canada Park does indeed straddle the Green Line with some of it in Israel. This site however is not in the small portion of the park that is in Israel. And you dont have to take my word for it. Here. That dashed line is the Green Line. nableezy - 23:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with User:Nableezy's suggested edit is that he lives in the past, but not in the present. This is plain to all.Davidbena (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, can you explain why this edit of yours is a good idea? You replace the simple term West Bank with a circumlocution. You don't want to grant that the site is in the West Bank? The terminology of 'de-facto annexation' that you use on the article talk page looks adventurous and I'm not sure why editors are allowing so much talk space for an apparently eccentric discussion. We may grant that East Jerusalem is in a funny status because Israel uses special vocabulary for it, and also the Golan Heights, but this stuff about Emmaus appears strange. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Emmaus is situated in the very center of Israel, the heart of Israel. In government circles, there is no discussion at all, no dialogue, to make the place negotiable for a return under Arab-rule or hegemony, since "Area C" in the Oslo II Accords (where the site is located) is clearly defined as remaining under "full Israeli civil and security control." It's non-negotiable. So, when I saw the emphasis on "West-Bank," as the location of this place, it conjured-up in my mind an editor who wanted to relive the past, but forget the present status of the place. My edit was to fully clarify the current status of the place.Davidbena (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying it is in the West Bank is to state where it is in relation to the Green Line (Israel). Why is it essential to add further information that it is in Area C? For an ancient site, this hardly appears to be a core feature of the article. It is importing modern politics. Based on what you have said in this thread, there is a hint of POV-pushing. Like your critique of Nableezy's edit, that 'he lives in the past, but not the present.' Though content issues are beyond the scope of admins, we are expected to keep an eye on obvious tendentious editing, which is starting to be the suspicion here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so if I might politely ask you, why is it important to mention the place's relation to the Green Line (Israel)? This is hardly an essential component in this article. Secondly, how can I be accused of POV-pushing when I have from the beginning to the end stressed only a NEUTRAL edit?Davidbena (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of contents

No you are not right. I am just trying to correct my English. I have just changed few words. It hasn't changed the meaning of the comments. I have every right to do this. Obviously you cannot call it disruptive edit. Please dont revert my edits. Arman ad60 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about One Click Archiver

Hey! I saw you archiving stuff with One Click Archiver. I was wondering if it is limited to certain users. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No. See WP:OneClickArchiver. I decided to do some manual archiving at AN3 because the regular bot seems to have fallen behind on doing the archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

installed and done Winterysteppe (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dean1997

Dean1997 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is determined that the infobox at Cara Delevingne should show a particular romantic "partner." This was against consensus. He chose to edit war about it and you warned him "to get consensus on the talk page before trying yet again to add 'partner' information to Cara Delevingne's article." Apparently unsatisfied with that prospect, he made the edit with a different account, for which he received a week-long block (SPI). Why was I surprised to see that he'd done it again? I apologize if this is petty; I know I could just keep reverting his mostly-harmless edit every few days, but it irks me—uggh! Thank you.  Rebbing  02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked. Thanks for following up. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

However you want to handle this as I think you gave the warning a day or to ago and the confusion was cleared away

Sorry to bother you with this. It's re: MB. Again. I don't mind the comment much but the sanction has either outlived it's usefulness and should be rescinded (it's over a year) or enforced. In the past Gamaliel has refused to lift or enforce it against MB and the sanction was reduced by him only when he enforced it against me (he rev delled something I wrote and Mitchell blocked me - AN reversed it and noted an abuse of tools - AN undid the block, undid the revdell's as it was not a violation, and left some strong words about abusing tools - check my block log) - Anyway, I don't care whether it stays or goes. The original sanction was to prevent me and Thargor from bringing AE cases against MB for incivility and I'm sure if I bring it, there will be a literal shiatstorm. You can either ignore it, enforce it (another warning or whatever), bring it AE to lift the sanction or bring it to AE to enforce it or point me where I can get it lifted. I'm afraid that little bites will just keep accumulating as they have in the past without any way to redress or respond. It's a minor cheapshot, but after your warning, I wouldn't have thought he'd be so quick to return to "minor." Just like the 3RR report, they'll be at AE lickety-split (or email as that was the method used for the overturned one) This is the latest violation --DHeyward (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And escalated again with a thinly veiled reference to the "Edit Warring Noticeboard" with a absolutely false characterization. I didn't add any quotes. I didn't even add the text, just the souce but he still need to stop the personal attacks. [11]. Choice for me now is expand out more sources in thae article (because he's wrong) or delete the paragraph entirely as I don't even think it belongs. Try #2 first. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say, I'm glad that I don't understand this. I'm remembering why I tried to avoid Gamergate stuff back in 2015. By the way, your current restriction doesn't prevent you from opening a new AE against MB. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand, I wish I didn't understand it either. I'm not going to bring AE complaint as that is what generated topic ban in the first place. I may appeal it but it's difficult to describe the problem as you just read. --DHeyward (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Self-requested block

As on my talk page, Can you block me until Friday, April 15 because I need to enforce my wikibreak.KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please ask one of the admins listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR Violation

Ed, since you seem to engage at the 3rr Noticeboard fairly regularly, I'm interested to get your input on why this submission seems likely to be archived with no admin response. The subject has refused to acknowledge the violation, but has instead responded with personal attacks. I made what seemed (to me anyway) like a good faith offer to withdraw the complaint if he/she would at least observe WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but he/she flat out denies that the policy even applies. I understand that editors can be given grace when they give some indication that they at least understand how they might have violated policy. That does not seem to be the case here. Thanks very much.CFredkin (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

When a 3RR case involves BLP, it may be difficult to issue blocks unless one party is really being outrageous. (Each party might be reverting because of a good-faith belief they were removing a BLP violation). In that particular article it looks to be a fight over nuances. In this edit of the David Jolly article, User:Dirroli appears to think that Sarah Bascom's name ought to be removed, and that more context should be given for the complaint. You want to restore Bascom's name and give less context. For the most part, reliable sources are provided for all these things. So which of you is being the villain? EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I understand your point regarding the nuance of our positions, but my impression is that both WP:3rr and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE provide pretty cut and dried rules of engagement. In any case it's good for me to know that they can be dis-regarded in some cases moving forward.CFredkin (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've now put the David Jolly page under two weeks of full protection. If the RfC on the talk page reaches a result, the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging.CFredkin (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this covert effort by CFredkin to get an admin (you) on his side, rather than letting it play out on the edit warring noticeboard and the Jolly talk page. It's remarkable that CFredkin failed to admit or even acknowledge that saying Bascom herself scrubbed the Jolly article was an obvious BLP violation since no sources say that. Anyway, I would be very surprised if there aren't any rules on Wikipedia about an editor secretly trying to persuade an administrator to support his position and take action against another editor, particularly when there is a discussion currently taking place on a noticeboard and elsewhere. So I guess when things aren't going his way at a noticeboard, CFredkin thinks it's appropriate to go behind everyone's backs to find someone who will be sympathetic to his views. Dirroli (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

it is called WP:ADMINSHOP if it excessive. But both of you should just knock off the drama here and work it out at the article talk page. I am still waiting for CFredkin to write something meaningful there beyond citing strings of capital letters and presenting an RfC with the two versions and saying "pick". That is not using a talk page to work toward consensus. There is WP:NODEADLINE especially with the article protected, so Dirroli just be patient and wait for CFredkin to actually communicate, and in the meantime talk with other editors who are actually talking, to try to arrive at a consensus version. If CFredkin doesn't participate and just resumes edit warring after protection lifts they will be completely block-able and perhaps TBAN-able, as doing that (not actually talking and working toward consensus while the article is protected) is really bad behavior. Just focus on the work, and not the drama. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog: It appears that you've followed me here from the SPI you and another editor filed against myself and the other editor accused by Jolly's spokesperson of being paid operatives in the recent Buzzfeed article. I understand that your feathers are a bit ruffled that I've challenged you on your repeated claims that you don't need to provide evidence to support your accusations against us until after a CU and for deleting the responses of myself and the other accused editor from the SPI page. But the fact that you've now followed me here is starting to seem like WP:Wikihounding. As far as your assertions regarding this particular issue, I believe I've clearly stated my concerns regarding Dirroli's content in the Talk discussion. Dirroli's responses have been rambling and vitriolic. Since we've each had the opportunity to lay out our positions, I've intitiated an RfC to solicit outside opinion. I'm hopeful that will help provide clarity on the situation.CFredkin (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I have watched this page for around a year now, which you would see if you checked the history; for a person who complains bitterly about unfounded "accusations" you should be more careful in making them. On the Jolly talk page, on this issue you have just said this and this One post, stating a broad argument, and a second focused on one word, is not working toward consensus over nuances. I won't be responding to you further here: i am getting the "i love drama" vibe loud and clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog: Speaking of unfounded accusations, you missed this edit by me at Talk. And since you've inserted yourself into the discussion here, I'll note that I haven't seen you make any positive contributions to the discussion on this issue at the Talk there either.CFredkin (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

just noting that i originally missed the 2nd dif but had added it prior to CFredkin's comment. two whole comments is not dialogue and the comment is yet more drama from this editor. BWOTJytdog (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Speaking of BWOT... Here's my perspective on the sequence of events related to your SPI:

• Jolly's spokesperson edits his WP bio to remove some content that could be considered negative about him and add some content that could be considered positive.
• I restored the negative content because it was well-sourced and removed the recently added positive content that was unsourced.
• Jolly's spokesperson is outed on Buzzfeed for having edited his bio and claims that myself and another editor she had interacted with are paid operatives.
• You, Dirroli, and the editor who is playing Dolores Umbridge to your Pius Thicknesse in an SPI investigation to unmask paid operatives for Republican candidates reads the Buzzfeed article and head to the David Jolly article post haste.
• Dolores Umbridge notices that myself and the other editor named in the Buzzfeed article edit some of the same articles and the 2 of you decide to add us to your SPI investigation.
• When we challenge your claims and request evidence to back up your accusations, you 1) ignore the requests, 2) delete the requests, 3) respond to the effect that evidence will be provided after the trial and you've nothing to fear if you nothing to hide.
• Dirroli (who by the way started editing on WP on 3/17/16) starts adding as much negative information about the incident to Jolly's bio as he/she can. When challenged, he/she ignores WP policy and responds with hostility.

So, from my perspective, you're the ones creating "drama".CFredkin (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for the info and your good advice. I appreciate it. What's most frustrating is CFredkin's ludicrous claim: "I've clearly stated my concerns regarding Dirroli's content in the Talk discussion". Any reasonable person can read the two threads on the Jolly talk page, Neutrality and RfC, and see the huge difference between my input and his. He makes an illogical claim, then, after it's shown to be false or even hypocritical, he either refuses to acknowledge it or simply changes the subject and states a new objection. Dirroli (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The difference is clear.CFredkin (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog has proven that he knows exactly what's going on, which is why he said "I am still waiting for CFredkin to write something meaningful there beyond citing strings of capital letters" and "wait for CFredkin to actually communicate". Jytdog nailed it with those two references. All you do is cite policies (BLP, POV, UNDUE) without providing any evidence that they are being violated, and you completely fail to communicate. You make complaints that consist of pure rhetoric and no substance, then never say say another word after your objection has been addressed or proven invalid. Anyway, if you are actually a sockpuppet, as is being alleged, then none of this will matter. I hope you are not. Dirroli (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Just for context, here's a perfect example of CFredkin making a completely illogical claim, providing absolutely nothing to back it up except for "capital letters" (as Jytdog calls it), and then refusing to communicate any further. It's from the "Neutrality" discussion on the Jolly talk page:

"I'll also point out that Dirroli's edit changes "confirmed" to "admitted" which is clearly WP:POV in this case.CFredkin (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)"

"You must be joking. The campaign did admit it! And what is the headline of the primary source?![12] It's "Florida Senate Campaign Admits To Scrubbing Candidate’s Wikipedia Page". See the word "Admits" in there? When someone is accused of wrong-doing and then they confirm they did it, that's called an admission. So give us a break. Claiming that it is a POV violation to state that someone "admitted" something, especially when they obviously did, is utter nonsense. Dirroli (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)"

So I respond to CFredkin's baseless allegation and show why it makes no sense, but he never says another word. If it only happened once or twice, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. But he does it as a matter of habit. He did the same thing with FuriouslySerene regarding his false claim about the spokeswoman; he makes an illogical claim, FS proves he's wrong, then he permanently stops talking.

Dirroli (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How to guide for AE (primarily DS)

Hi Ed, I've been thinking of creating a how to guide for admins to use when enforcing arbitration decisions and implementing discretionary sanctions on individuals and on pages. I've made a start at User:Callanecc/AE how-to guide and I was hoping that you'd be willing to help out given your experience? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If people want to leave feedback on your essay, where should they do so? At User talk:Callanecc/AE how-to guide or on your regular talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you -- Jolly protection

Much thanks for applying protection to the Jolly page, it's a good time to apply it. Damotclese (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand why your put back the version that existed prior to the edit warring, but you restored it to a version that both sides now agree contatins a BLP violation, where it says "Sarah Bascom confirmed that she had made edits", which undisputably is not said in any of the sources. That is why you'll see that the RfC creator changed it (version B) to say "Sarah Bascom confirmed that the campaign had made edits". So please change "she" to "the campaign" to remove the BLP violation. Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed: 'she' -> 'the campaign'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I'm sorry to bother you again about this, but I just noticed that the edit war actually began earlier than you indicated. It started with this edit, which was then responded to minutes later with this edit. So it should be restored to the version just prior to these first two edits, which is this one. Dirroli (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The difference doesn't introduce any BLP violation that I can see. If you think it can't wait for the eventual resolution, why not use the {{edit protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself clearly. I'm just saying that you restored to a version that existed after the edit warring started, not before. I didn't notice until after you removed the BLP violation a few minutes ago. So if you're going to restore an older version prior to any of the edit warring, it should be to the one immediatley before this one, which is what launched the edit warring. So the edit before it, this one by Jytdog, is the version it should go back to. Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How far back to go in the history is a judgment call. I think my choice is adequate. Neither side of the dispute gave a convincing explanation for why their version was better, even though both seemed very concerned about BLP. It seemed to be more a matter of personal taste. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ed, it's actually not a judgment call at all that this edit by CFredkin is the one that started the edit warring; he removed over 1300 bytes from the content, including sources, and the edit warring was underway from there. Further, you'll see that several editors restored the sourced content that CFredkin removed, and not a single editor supported his removals. So if you're going to restore an old version, then it is only fair to restore it to the one before that signifciant removal of content by CFredkin. Otherwise, do not restore it to an old version at all, and just leave what was there when you protected the article. And if you want a convincing explanation, read my comments in the RfC. That will lay it out for you very clearly. Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)